Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

PGM is all set for February. This month, we're playing through a game known as Eevee's Tile Trial. If you wish to earn rewards, please head over to our event thread by clicking on the provided link and give yourself a shot at the game!

Hey Unregistered! How fast can you game? The Marathon II is up and running in Video Game's - compete against your friends to see how quickly you can complete sixty intense in-game challenges. See you there!

More than three-quarters of the Senate Republican caucus signed onto legislation introduced Wednesday by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rand Paul (R-KY) that could render it virtually impossible for Congress to enact any legislation intended to improve working conditions or otherwise regulate the workplace. Had their bill been in effect during the Twentieth Century, for example, there would likely be no nationwide minimum wage, no national ban on workplace discrimination, no national labor law and no overtime in most industries.

Like many Tea Party proposals to neuter the federal government, Coburn and Paul’s bill is marketed as an effort to bring America back in line with a long-ago discarded vision of the Constitution. It’s named the “Enumerated Powers Act of 2013,” a reference to the provisions of the Constitution outlining Congress’ specific powers, and it claims to require all federal legislation to “’contain a concise explanation of the specific authority in the Constitution’ that is the basis for its enactment.”

The key provision in this bill, however, would revive a discredited interpretation of the Constitution that America abandoned nearly eight decades ago. Although the text of the bill is not yet available online, a press release from Coburn’s office explains that it “[p]rohibits the use of the Commerce Clause, except for ‘the regulation of the buying and selling of goods or services, or the transporting for those purposes, across boundaries with foreign nations, across State lines, or with Indian tribes.’”

To translate this language a bit, in the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court embraced an unusually narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s provision enabling Congress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” Under this narrow reading, which lasted less than half a century, the justices said that they would only permit federal laws that regulated the transport of goods for sale or a sale itself. Manufacturing, mining, production and agriculture were all held to be beyond federal regulation. This theory was the basis for several decisions striking down basic labor protections, including a 1918 decision declaring a child labor law unconstitutional.

Coburn and Paul’s bill appears to be an attempt to restore the constitutional regime that prohibited child labor regulation and other such nationwide regulation of the American workplace. While the bill does not apply retroactively — so existing labor laws would continue to function — the bill does allow a procedural objection to be raised against any new legislation that does not comply with the limits imposed by the bill. Such an objection could be used to block any most attempts to enact new workplace laws — such as a bill increasing the national minimum wage or a bill prohibiting all employers from firing workers because they are gay. Similarly, Coburn and Paul’s bill could permanently entrench decisions by the conservative Roberts Court rolling back existing protections for workers — such as a recent decision shielding many employers whose senior employees engage in sexual harassment.

Such an effort to shrink the constitutional role of government until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub is consistent with Paul and Coburn’s records. Last March, Paul praised a particularly infamous Supreme Court decision empowering employers to ruthlessly exploit their workers. Coburn told a town hall meeting in 2011 that Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional because “that’s a family responsibility, not a government responsibility.”

The scariest thing about this bill is that if they do pass it, they would likely move right on to removing any current worker protections.

I suppose I can see their point - I mean, it isn't like their are millions of people in this country who think that a safe work environment is important. Wait, there are millions of people who think that a safe work enviroment is important? Who cares what all those communist's think?

I swear, the government and the Tea Party are so anti-American and anti-humanism that they aren't even attempting to hide their hatred of human rights anymore. How can they think that removing workers' rights would EVER benefit anyone? Oh, that's right—it's help them make more money. Silly me, how could I forget?

That source looks suspect and the wording of the snippet you posted seems severely slanted.

And who cares? It's not going to pass. The Senate is majority Democrat and they'll never sign on, even if they do get every single Republican to vote aye. And even if it did manage to pass, Obama would veto it.

Keep in mind that this congress has passed the fewest number of bills in recent history. If you think something that either party opposes even slightly is going to pass, you vastly overestimate our current congress' ability to do anything.

Quote originally posted by Silais:

I swear, the government and the Tea Party are so anti-American and anti-humanism that they aren't even attempting to hide their hatred of human rights anymore. How can they think that removing workers' rights would EVER benefit anyone? Oh, that's right—it's help them make more money. Silly me, how could I forget?

Uh, what? "The government" isn't proposing this measure, a subset of the Republican party is. "The government" is made up of many different individuals and it is likely that the majority opposes this bill.

Quote originally posted by Amore:

Ugh...I'd quite like to live in America one day if it weren't for extremists like that. I hope we don't get anything that obscene going through British Parliament any time soon.

But the article above could be shortened to: BREAKING: RICH GUYS' COMMITTEE APPROVES OF BILL TO REMOVE WORKERS' RIGHTS.

Quite clearly they are very self-interested, rather than wanting to do what is right for their country.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

The current mentality of this political party (and to a lesser extent, I hope, the country) is so nonsensical, ass-backwards, and detrimental it is mindboggling.

However, like twocows said, I don't expect anything to happen with this. I don't think they expect anything to actually come out of it either. Just posturing and pandering to people who should not be pandered to. Like voting to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time. It means nothing

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.